The Partnership for Peace (PfP; French: Partenariat pour la paix) is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) program aimed at creating trust between the member states of NATO and other states mostly in Europe, including post-Soviet states; 20 states are members. The program contains six areas of cooperation, which aims to build relationships with partners through military-to-military cooperation on training, exercises, disaster planning and response, science and environmental issues, professionalization, policy planning, and relations with civilian government.
Amidst security concerns in Eastern Europe after the Cold War and dissolution of the Soviet Union, and also due to the failure of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC), the program was launched during the summit in Brussels, Belgium between January 10 and 11, 1994. In the process, neutral countries also faced a situation in which they had to reconsider maintaining military neutrality; therefore, countries such as Finland, Sweden and Austria joined the Partnership for Peace field activities in 1997.
In the following decade, over the course of the 2000s, the PfP has made great progress. In 2002, it began the Individual Partnership Action Plan in order to provide members an opportunity to be granted further assistance from NATO without having to commit to becoming full members of NATO. The program has additionally started an initiative for education, specifically military education. Over the course of its creation, the program has struggled with funding due to its ever-changing formation of members.
Amidst the security concerns of the post–Cold War era, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) was established in 1991 to pay attention to security issues in Eastern Europe. The NACC was first announced at the Rome summit in November 1991 as NATO's first attempt to incorporate the former Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies into European security frameworks. This was intended to form diplomatic links between NATO and Eastern European military officials on industrial and military conversations. After 1991, the NACC held annual ministerial meetings and regular consultations between Eastern and Western representatives of NATO's political, economic, and military committees. The objective of these meetings was to strengthen the relations between Eastern and Western Europe, thereby contributing to the regional political and military stability. However, the council contained 36 members of considerable geographic, economic, and cultural diversity who were at times in political dispute with each other. Eventually, this caused limited actions on the NACC's primary mission. By 1993, a range of Eastern European countries lost confidence in the NACC. The emergence of new states such as Croatia and Ukraine after the split of Czechoslovakia resulted in Slovakian Foreign Minister, Milan Kňažko, urging the creation of a security framework that would facilitate cooperation on all levels with NATO. The shortcomings of the NACC in their insufficiency when dealing with fast-paced regional events, resulted in heightened pressure by NACC members for a membership into the NATO alliance and also the formation of an alternative program.
The concept of the PfP was first discussed by the Bulgarian society Novae, after being proposed as an American initiative at the meeting of NATO defense ministers in Travemünde, Germany, between October 20 and 21, 1993, and formally launched on January 10–11, 1994, at the NATO summit in Brussels, Belgium. According to declassified U.S. State Department records, President Clinton characterized to President Yeltsin the PfP as a "track that will lead to NATO membership" and that "does not draw another line dividing Europe a few hundred miles to the east". In September 1994 Clinton told Yeltsin that NATO would expand, but there was no timetable. By that time, Yeltsin had claimed a Russian sphere of influence covering the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Between October 20 and 21, 1993, in Travemünde, Germany, a meeting for NATO defense ministers was held. In the meeting, the US proposed a program called the Partnership for Peace in response to issues in Eastern Europe. This initiative was designed by the US Secretary of Defense Les Aspin who did not want to exclude Russia from international security arrangements. This was mainly an initiative launched to encourage states to build democracy and active participation towards maintaining international security. The program was also put in place in order to strengthen security cooperation with states in Central and Eastern Europe that were not part of the NATO alliance. In the NATO summit held between January 10 and 11, 1994, the PfP was established by NATO under the North Atlantic Council (NAC). It was claimed by Clinton that the partnership would give way for countries in Eastern Europe, including those that were part of the Soviet Union and even Russia itself to work together "for the best possible future for Europe".
The PfP Framework Document presented six areas of cooperation, including:
- To ensure transparency in national defense proceedings and budgeting procedures;
- To allow defense forces to be controlled through democratic methods;
- Under the jurisdiction of the United Nations or the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), states need to retain their ability and preparedness to contribute in constitutional behavior and operations;
- To enhance the ability for states to provide humanitarian missions such as peacekeeping and search and rescue as the main goal through building a cooperative militaristic relationship with NATO and other states involved;
- To build forces that can work with members of the NATO in the long run;
- To consult with and report to NATO if threats made to the security, territory or sovereignty of a participating state are detected.
States were also promised offices at the NATO headquarters and at a Partnership Coordination Cell which was located near the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe). States participating in the initiative were to receive perks for cooperating, albeit less than states who had already had full membership in the NATO alliance. NATO along with the US government announced that the existing alliance members would only need minimal contributions towards the cost of the initiative while the PfP members would have to fund for most of the cost of the program. The PfP also increased the possibility for participating states who were not part of the NATO alliance to be an official member, but never actually guaranteed a NATO membership. It was claimed[by whom?] that the PfP was used to delay decisions regarding the move towards expanding NATO membership to non-NATO members in Europe. It was also perceived[by whom?] as a devised plot by the West to prepare Eastern European states for the formation of a European Union by turning them into democratic states through military cooperation. By mid-October 1994, 22 states were part of the PfP.
On April 26, 1995, Malta became a member of PfP; it left on October 27, 1996, in order to maintain its neutrality. On March 20, 2008, Malta decided to reactivate their PfP membership; this was accepted by NATO at the summit in Bucharest on April 3, 2008. During the NATO summit in Riga on November 29, 2006, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Serbia were invited to join PfP, which they did on December 14, 2006.
Accession protocol signed members
|Finland||May 9, 1994|
|Sweden||May 9, 1994|
Collective Security Treaty Organization members
|Armenia||October 5, 1994|
|Belarus||January 11, 1995|
|Kazakhstan||May 27, 1994|
|Kyrgyzstan||June 1, 1994|
|Russia||June 22, 1994|
|Tajikistan||February 20, 2002|
European Union members
|Austria||February 10, 1995|
|Ireland||December 1, 1999|
|Malta||April 26, 1995[a]|
|Azerbaijan||May 4, 1994|
|Georgia||March 23, 1994|
|Moldova||March 16, 1994|
|Ukraine||February 8, 1994|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||December 14, 2006|
|Switzerland||December 11, 1996|
|Turkmenistan||May 10, 1994|
|Uzbekistan||July 13, 1994|
- Cyprus is the only European Union member state that is neither a NATO member state nor a member of the PfP program. The Parliament of Cyprus adopted a resolution in February 2011 that Cyprus should seek membership in the program, but the then President of Cyprus Demetris Christofias did not act on it, saying it would hamper his attempts to negotiate an end to the nation's dispute with Northern Cyprus (only recognized by Turkey) and demilitarize the island. Turkey, a full member of NATO, is likely to veto any attempt by Cyprus to engage with NATO until the dispute is resolved. Christofias' successor, Nicos Anastasiades, has publicly supported PfP membership for Cyprus, though the current foreign minister Nicos Christodoulides has dismissed Cypriot membership of NATO or Partnership for Peace, preferring to keep Cyprus’ foreign and defence affairs within the framework of the European Union.
- Kosovo[a] has described PfP membership as a tactical and strategic objective of the government. Kosovo submitted an application to join the PfP program in July 2012. However, four NATO member states, Greece, Romania, Spain and Slovakia, do not recognize Kosovo's independence and have threatened to block their participation in the program. To be eligible to join, the Kosovan Armed Forces must be established.
Finland's cooperation with NATO and participation in the PfP demonstrates that it has gained access to information and gained influence on security-related decisions, and that Finland is doing its part in managing crises in the European-Atlantic region. It is hoped that a strengthened partnership with the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) will benefit the security and stability of the Baltic region. The Finnish government's 1997 defense white paper strongly advocated the development of interoperability to support international crisis management in line with the PfP concept. The 1998-2008 defense program began in May 1997 at the "Spirit of PfP" training in northern Norway.
In 1994, Sweden's foreign minister declared that Sweden's policy could no longer be classified as neutral because the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the extinction of the Warsaw Treaty had eliminated two alliances to be classified as neutral. In 1996, 61% of the Swedish preferred to participate in future European defense cooperation, and 55% believed Sweden should strengthen its relationship with NATO. For Sweden, the PfP is an "essential component of the emerging European security order." In 1997, Sweden participated in 15 different PfP field exercises, three of which were held and adopted 35 different interoperability objectives within the PfP's planning and review process.
Austria's participation in PfP was strengthened in 1996. Their views on PfP focused on maintaining the ability and readiness to contribute to operations 'under the authority and/or responsibility of the United Nations and/or NATO and/or OSCE'. An important area of Austrian PfP contribution is private emergency planning. 30% of all PfP activities in this field came from Austria in 1997. In that year, Austria participated in 227 activities, including 14 peacekeeping operations involving 713 people, within the framework of the NATO/PfP program.
Fourteen former member states of the PfP (namely Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia) have subsequently joined NATO.
|Country||Joined PfP||Became full NATO member|
|Poland||February 2, 1994||March 12, 1999|
|Hungary||February 8, 1994|
|Czech Republic||March 10, 1994|
|Romania||January 26, 1994||March 29, 2004|
|Lithuania||January 27, 1994|
|Estonia||February 3, 1994|
|Slovakia||February 9, 1994|
|Latvia||February 14, 1994|
|Slovenia||March 30, 1994|
|Albania||February 23, 1994||April 1, 2009|
|Croatia||May 25, 2000|
|Montenegro||December 14, 2006||June 5, 2017|
|North Macedonia||November 15, 1995||March 27, 2020|
- 1.^ as Republic of Macedonia before February 2019.
During the post-Cold War era, equal distribution of opportunities to contribute to peacekeeping operations was made, but the status of middle and neutral powers such as Sweden, Finland, and Ireland also decreased. Therefore, neutral countries also faced a situation in which they had to reconsider maintaining military neutrality in the current international political unipolar system. In June 1997, a senior NATO official said a broader role was aimed at working closer with NATO and finally joining the alliance. While the PfP provides a framework for cooperative relations with Russia, it did not include a membership into NATO. Although the PfP has made important contributions to crisis management, such as peacekeeping operations, Ireland is still not a NATO member.
In 2001, NATO granted ‘Membership Action Plans (MAP) to nine of the 26 PfP countries, this program of assistance assures that member states have political advice by NATO. In 2002, NATO began the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) initiative during the 2002 Prague Summit. The goal of this plan was to provide member states of PfP a chance to be granted assistance from NATO to ''establish reform goals'' without the pressure of committing to NATO.
In 2003: The Alliance assumed strategic command, control, and coordination of the mission and established a permanent International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters in Kabul. Since then, the operation has grown to about 120,000 troops from 47 countries.
During the 2004 NATO Istanbul Summit, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative was launched. During this summit, six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council were included. Over the course of the summit, NATO also established the less formalized Partners across the Globe initiative.
In 2008, the PfP had implications during the conflict in Georgia. In August 2008, following a planned attack from Georgia against Tskhinvali, President Dmitry Medvedev referred to 8/08/08 as “Russia’s 9/11”. This was caused from an attempt to ‘’control the breakaway republic’’ as it accommodated peacekeeping bases of Russia. This event had implications for the program as it perceived the representation of a former "U.S.-Georgia bilateral Train-and-Equip program" to an expansion for the program and its allies.
As of 2010, only three of the 22 current PfP countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Montenegro) had MAPs’’. Additionally, ‘’11 PfP countries were contributing about 2,000 troops to the operation, and four Central Asian and two Caucasus partners were providing logistical and/or host nation support".
Partnership for Peace Education Initiative
The PfP has pushed for education programs amongst members of both NATO and the PfP composed of professional military education. Its purpose is to ‘’contribute to peace and security in the Euro-Atlantic region and beyond.’’ These education programs and training are mostly focused on Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
Struggles with funding
The Partnership for Peace has had ramification on its budget caused by the ever-changing formation of members. For instance, the average annual Wales Initiative Funding (WIF) established for the program was set at $43 million during the fiscal years of 1996 to 2005. In consequence of a decline in the number of countries participating in the program, annual funding was reduced to $29 million in fiscal years 2006 through 2010. Another factor includes the reduction of distribution of WIF funding in the program amongst aspiring members of NATO.
- Atlantic Treaty Association
- Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council
- Foreign relations of NATO
- Individual Partnership Action Plan
- Partnership for Peace Information Management System
- The political status of Kosovo is disputed. Having unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in 2008, Kosovo is formally recognised as an independent state by 101 UN member states (with another 13 states recognising it at some point but then withdrawing their recognition) and 92 states not recognizing it, while Serbia continues to claim it as part of its own territory.
- North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (December 3, 2009). "Partner countries". Retrieved December 23, 2009.
- "Partnership for Peace programme". NATO.
- Simon, Jeffrey (1994). Partnership for Peace: Stabilizing the East. Defense Technical Information Center. OCLC 713348684.
- Sunley, Johnathan. Tasks for NATO II: improve the partnership for peace. OCLC 82596203.
- Ishizuka, Katsumi (2014). Ireland and International Peacekeeping Operations 1960-2000. Taylor and Francis. ISBN 978-1-135-29526-4. OCLC 879023336.
- Christoff, Joseph A. (2009). "GAO Report on NATO Enlargement: Albania and Croatia". Connections: The Quarterly Journal. 08 (2): 75–91. doi:10.11610/connections.08.2.06. ISSN 1812-1098.
- Kruzel, Joseph (1995). "Partnership for Peace and the Transformation of North Atlantic Security". In Papacosma, S. V.; Heiss, M. A. (eds.). NATO in the Post-Cold War Era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. pp. 339–345. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-60836-2_15. ISBN 978-1-349-60838-6. Retrieved March 18, 2022.
- de Santis, Hugh (December 1994). "Romancing NATO: Partnership for peace and East European stability". Journal of Strategic Studies. 17 (4): 61–81. doi:10.1080/01402399408437570. ISSN 0140-2390.
- Borawski, John (April 1995). "Partnership for Peace and beyond". International Affairs. Royal Institute of International Affairs. 71 (2): 233–246. doi:10.2307/2623432. JSTOR 2623432.
- "The President's Meeting with Czech Leaders". National Security Archive. William J. Clinton Presidential Library. January 11, 1994 – via George Washington University.
- Savranskaya, Svetlana; Blanton, Tom. "NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard". National Security Archive. Retrieved April 6, 2019.
- Jim Goldberger (November 22, 2019). "Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin Was Told About NATO in 1993 and Why It Matters". War on the Rocks. Retrieved June 4, 2022.
- "Background Briefing". Clinton White House. September 21, 1994. Retrieved June 9, 2022.
- John M. Goshko (September 27, 1994). "Yeltsin Claims Russian Sphere of Influence". Washington Post. Retrieved June 12, 2022.
- E., Gallis, Paul (1994). Partnership for peace. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. OCLC 299723964.
- Ruhle, Michael; Williams, Nicholas (July 4, 1994). "Partnership for Peace: A Personal View from NATO". The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters. 24 (1). doi:10.55540/0031-1723.1717. ISSN 0031-1723. S2CID 221896802.
- "Partnership for Peace: Framework Document issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council". NATO. Retrieved March 18, 2022.
- North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (April 26, 1995). "Secretary General's Council Welcoming Remarks, Visit by Maltese Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Professor Guido de Marco, Wednesday, April 26, 1995". Retrieved November 30, 2006.
- Bohlen, Celestine (November 12, 1996). "New Malta Chief Focuses on Neutrality". New York Times. Retrieved April 5, 2008.
Within hours of taking office, Mr. Sant withdrew Malta's membership in Partnership for Peace, a NATO military cooperation program that is so loosely defined that its sign-up list now spans the spectrum from Russia to Switzerland. [...] Mr. Sant says none of those moves should be interpreted as anti-European or anti-American, but simply as the best way of insuring Malta's security.
- Gambin, Karl (April 3, 2008). "Malta reactivates Partnership for Peace membership". DI-VE. Archived from the original on March 23, 2008. Retrieved April 3, 2008.
The cabinet has agreed to reactivate its membership in the Partnership for Peace which was withdrawn in 1996, the government said on Thursday.
- North Atlantic Treaty Organization (April 3, 2008). "Malta re-engages in the Partnership for Peace Programme". Retrieved April 3, 2008.
At the Bucharest Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government welcomed Malta's return to the Partnership for Peace Programme. At Malta's request, the Allies have re-activated Malta's participation in the Partnership for Peace Programme (PfP).
- North Atlantic Treaty Organization (November 29, 2006). "Alliance offers partnership to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia". Retrieved November 30, 2006.
- "Signatures of Partnership for Peace Framework Document". North Atlantic Treaty Organization. October 5, 2006. Retrieved November 30, 2006.
- "Serbia inducted into NATO". Associated Press. December 14, 2006. Retrieved December 14, 2006.
- Wilson, Damon (April 1, 2019). "NATO membership for Cyprus. Yes, Cyprus". Atlantic Council. Retrieved January 1, 2020.
- "Cypriot parliament votes to join NATO's Partnership for Peace". SETimes. February 25, 2011. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
- "Cyprus – Vouli Antiprosopon (House of Representatives)". Inter-Parliamentary Union. Retrieved February 24, 2013.
- Dempsey, Judy (November 24, 2012). "Between the European Union and NATO, Many Walls". New York Times. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
- Kambas, Michele; Babington, Deepa (February 24, 2013). "Cypriot conservative romps to presidential victory". Reuters. Retrieved February 24, 2013.
- "Cyprus dismisses reports on NATO scenarios". KNEWS - Kathimerini Cyprus. June 5, 2018. Retrieved January 12, 2020.
- "Hoxhaj në Lituani, merr përkrahje për MSA-në dhe vizat (Video)". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo. April 3, 2014. Retrieved April 3, 2014.
- "Kosovo seeks to join international organisations". Turkish Weekly. July 19, 2012. Archived from the original on July 25, 2012. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
- "Kosovo looking to join the Adriatic Charter". January 21, 2013. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
- Thaçi, Hashim. "Prioritetet e reja të Politikës së Jashtme të Kosovës". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo.
- Herd, Graeme P.; Flesch, Daniel A. (2008). "The Georgia Crisis: Implications for the Partnership for Peace". Connections: The Quarterly Journal. 08 (1): 1–10. doi:10.11610/connections.08.1.01. ISSN 1812-1098.
- Keagle, James M. (2012). "A Special Relationship: U.S. and NATO Engagement with the Partnership for Peace to Build Partner Capacity Through Education". Connections: The Quarterly Journal. 11 (4): 59–73. doi:10.11610/connections.11.4.07. ISSN 1812-1098.